THE INDISCIPLINE OF TOURISM

John Tribe
Buckinghamshire College, UK

Abstract: This paper develops a new model which exposes the epistemological characteristics
of tourism studies. Various claims and frameworks have been proposed with regard to the
epistemology of tourism, mainly centering around the discipline/field debate. A critical review
of these is undertaken and the idea that tourism studies is a discipline is rejected. It is proposed
that tourism be conceptualized as two fields (the business of tourism and the non-business
aspects of tourism) which are approached by four main methods of inquiry. The model provides
insights into how tourism studies is developing, the way the tourism world is seen, and the
reasons for divisions among academics and between academics and industrialists. Keywords:
epistemology, discipline, field, multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, extradisciplinarity.
Resume: L'indiscipline du tourismc. Cet article devcloppe un nouveau modele qui explore les
caracteristiques epistemologiques de !'etude du tourismc. Plusieurs arguments et structures
de pensee ont etc proposes pour l'epistemologie du tourisme, se concentrant sur le debat
discipline/domaine. On effectue une etude critique des deux termes, et !'idee que !'etude du
tourisme est une discipline est rejetee. On propose de conceptualiser la notion du tourisme
comme deux domaines distincts-l'industrie du tourisme et !'aspect non commercial du
tourisme, pour lequel on utilise quatrc methodes d'enquete. Le modele permet de comprendre
lc developpement actuel de l'etude du tourisme, la maniere de concevoir le monde du tourisme,
et les divisions parmi universitaires et entre universitaires et gestionnaires. Mots-des: epi-
stemologie, discipline, domainc, multidisciplinarite, interdisciplinarite, extradisciplinarite.

INTRODUCTION
Conscious of its youthfulness and thus its potential lack of intel-
lectual credibility, tourism studies has sought to define itself in ways
which would give it academic weight. While some analysts have
attempted to describe tourism studies as a discipline, others have
found evidence to support its conception as a multidisciplinary field.
Underpinning by scientific method has also been sought in search of
a rigorous approach. This paper offers a comprehensive review of the
epistemology of tourism and proposes a new model for its under-
standing. Its method of inquiry uses the philosophy of knowledge and
the sociology of knowledge.
THE INDISCIPLINE OF TOURISM
Epistemology of Tourism
The question of knowing about what one knows about tourism is an
epistemological question, epistemology being that branch of phil-
osophy which studies knowledge. Its essential concern is the analysis
of the validity of a claim to know something. The epistemology of
tourism thus inquires into the character of tourism knowledge, the
sources of tourism knowledge, the validity and reliability of claims of
knowledge of the external world of tourism, the use of concepts,
the boundaries of tourism studies, and the categorization of tourism
studies as a discipline or a field.
It is important to distinguish between different forms of knowing
about tourism. First, "knowing that" represents propositional knowl-
edge. The truth of a proposition must be validated against appropriate
criteria generally provided by academic disciplines. Second, "knowing
how" is procedural knowledge, or process knowledge which may be
validated against performance to certain standards. While prop-
ositional knowledge characterizes tourism as an academic study, pro-
cedural knowledge is a key part of the professional practice of tourism
management.
The importance of epistemology for tourism is two-fold. First, it
promotes a systematic review of what is legitimate tourism knowledge.
It is thus in the business of knowledge quality control-a business
that is particularly important for areas which are relatively immature
such as tourism studies. Second, the map or the boundaries of tourism
studies are still not agreed on. Epistemology can help this debate to
develop.
The word tourism is problematic, because it is used in common
parlance. As such its use is often permissive and imprecise, and thus
it can encompass a variety of meanings. The term seems to be a
different kind of term from physics or philosophy or economics. These
academic disciplines describe particular ways of analyzing the exter-
nal world. However, tourism is the material of the external world of
events and so is the data to be examined rather than the method of
examination. But tourism means more. The term is like the term
education, which describes phenomena in the external world, but also
describes a field of academic inquiry. Additionally, there is something
called tourism education which is distinct from tourism practice and
connected with its study.
Analysis of the epistemology of tourism is going to be subject to
confusion unless a clear distinction is made among the various mean-
ings of the term tourism. These distinct meanings then need to be
labeled and used consistently throughout this paper. The analytic
strategy proposed to resolve this problem is what Soltis ( 1968)
describes as a differentiation type analysis. The problem requiring
resolution is that the concept of tourism is found to have more than
one standard meaning. The purpose of differentiation type analysis is
to clarify the logical terrain covered by different meanings of the
concept of tourism. The initial survey of the terrain has revealed three
possible separate types of use of the concept of tourism.
 First, tourism is a phenomenon in the external world. Here tourism
is what people are engaged in when they visit friends and relatives, or
go skiing, or visit the three gorges in China. It is proposed to refer to
this dimension of tourism as the external world of tourism or the
phenomenon of tourism, or tourism for short. Second, tourism has
generated interest among academics. Here one may envisage the
emergence of an academic community (Becher 1989) whose business
involves the investigation of tourism and the construction of a body
of knowledge. This dimension of tourism will be referred to as the
study of tourism. There is also a third dimension which has resulted
from the emergence of courses in tourism. This dimension will be
referred to as tourism education and training. It is the logical terrain
of the first two dimensions that is explored in the rest of this paper
as it attempts to conceptualize how the external world of tourism is
interpreted through tourism studies.

The Phenomenon of Tourism

Tourism is essentially an activity engaged in by human beings and
the minimum necessary features that need to exist for it to be said to
have occurred include the act of travel from one place to another,
a particular set of motives for engaging in that travel (excluding
commuting for work), and the engagement in activity at the desti-
nation.
Mathieson and Wall encompass these points in their succinct defi-
nition of tourism as:
the temporary movement to destinations outside the normal home and
workplace, the activities undertaken during the stay, and the facilities
created to cater for the needs of tourists ( 1982: I).

Such a definition locates tourism as the sum of a number of subac-

tivities, mainly travel, hospitality, and recreation. Ryan proposes a
similar definition of tourism as:
a study of the demand for and supply of accommodation and supportive
services for those staying away from home, and the resultant patterns of
expenditure, income creation, and employment (1991:5).

This definition (which elides tourism and its studies) shares with the
previous one an emphasis on the economic and business aspects of
tourism. Such definitions are common since they set out an area of
tourism which can essentially be described by monetary flows. These
flows include consumer spending, business income, expenditure and
profit, and the effects on the national and regional economies of the
tourism generating country and host country.
However, tourism clearly encompasses more than just that which
is measurable in monetary terms. Przeclawski ( 1993) has pointed out
the psychological, the social, and the cultural as additional important
elements of tourism. Ryan emphasizes the psychological aspects in
his definition as:
 the means by which people seek psychological benefits that arise from
experiencing new places, and new situations that are of temporary duration,
while free from the constraints of work, or normal patterns of daily life at
home (1991:6).

But this is not so much a global definition of tourism as an initial

foray into tourism motivation. It also portrays tourism as an activity
that is essentially focused on the tourist. Tourism is a wider activity
with important impacts on host communities. This wider world of
tourism is captured in the definition provided by Mcintosh and Goeld-
ner:
tourism may be defined as the sum of the phenomena and relationships
arising from the interaction of tourists, business suppliers, host govern-
ments, and host communities in the process of attracting and hosting these
tourists and other visitors ( 1995:10).

However, this definition could be improved upon. First, the last part
seems to unduly complicate and limit things, and its omission would
enhance economy of expression. Second, the term host communities
could be extended to "host communities and environments" to take
account the physical environment as well as the human community.
Third, one needs to consider not just businesses and the individual in
tourism-generating countries but also governments, communities,
and the environment in these generating countries. Thus, a modified
definition of tourism might read:
the sum of the phenomena and relationships arising from the interaction
in generating and host regions, of tourists, business suppliers, governments,
communities, and environments.

Of course the phenomenon of tourism is ultimately just whatever is

linked with the act of tourism and thus one must beware of seeking
definitions which may lead to exclusions. But the above definition does
reveal the key dimensions: those related to the tourist (including
motivation, choice, satisfaction, interaction); those related to business
(including marketing, organization and corporate planning of trans-
port, hospitality, and recreation); those relating to the host com-
munity (including perceptions, economic, social, and cultural
impacts); those relating to the host environment (including ecological
impacts); those relating to host governments (including measurement
of tourism, policy, and planning); and those relating to the generating
country (including economic, environmental, and cultural effects).
Tourism has thus been conceptualized by different writers in different
ways. Some are narrow business-related definitions, but tourism can
be stretched to encompass a wide range of phenomena. There do not
appear to be any logical grounds for restricting the meaning of tour-
ism, hence the wide definition proposed above is used for the purposes
of this study.
It is now possible to map out the interrelationships between tourism
as a phenomenon and the study of tourism. Popper's ( 1975) distinction
between three worlds provides a useful framework for distinguishing
between tourism as a phenomenon and as a study. The three worlds
that Popper proposes are the external world (world 1), human con-
5

sciousness (world II), and the world of objective knowledge (world

III). Tourism as a phenomenon is that external world (world I) where
humans go about the business of being tourists. It is whatever humans
decide to do within the fairly wide definition of the term which is
large, messy, complex, and dynamic.
This is not the same world as the study of tourism. The latter
consists of a tourism research community (world II) and a symbolic
record of objective tourism knowledge (world III). It is an attempt by
humans to capture, to represent, to describe, and to explain the
phenomenon of tourism.
The study of tourism uncovers new ways of seeing tourism, maps
out new concepts, elaborates new theories and builds up a body of
knowledge. Tourism studies is however essentially much less than the
activity that it describes. It is essentially in the business of making
generalizations about the phenomenal world of tourism and the pack-
aging of theories. Tourism studies is, therefore, only a microcosm of
tourism. Indeed there may well be interesting aspects of tourism
which are not as yet revealed or discovered by the study of tourism.
The relationship between the study of tourism and the activity of
tourism also points up the important issue of boundaries and concepts.
For there is an issue of what parts of the phenomenon of tourism are
studied in tourism studies, and how these parts are to be concep-
tualized. World I is illuminated by and conceptualized in world III.
The epistemology of tourism therefore is the key to the phenomenon.

Wiry Tourism is not a Discipline

It has been tempting for some writers to interpret the development
of tourism studies as an evolution towards disciplinary status, the
implication being that the achievement of disciplinary status would
resolve epistemological problems. Disciplinary status would provide
the necessary tools and framework for promoting sound tourism
knowledge. Tourism knowledge would become self-refereeing within
its discipline, knowledge quality control would be assured, and tourism
academics would take their place on an equal par with those from
other disciplines.
Goeldner ( 1988) describes tourism as a discipline. He sees it as
being in its formative stages on a parallel with business administration
as it was developing in the United States about 30years ago. On
the other hand, according to Cooper, Fletcher, Gilbert and Wanhill,
"While tourism rightly constitutes a domain of study, at the moment
it lacks the level of theoretical underpinning which would allow it to
become a discipline" ( 1993:1). Perhaps the debate as to whether the
study of tourism is a discipline or a field is still unsettled. Hirst's
( 1965, 1974) work on disciplines and fields can serve as a useful
framework for the evaluation of tourism studies in this respect.
Although Hirst has changed his view regarding the forms of knowledge
as being the essential features of a liberal education, he "still hold(s)
that forms of theoretical knowledge can be distinguished in terms of
the logical features and truth criteria of the propositions with which
they are primarily concerned" (Hirst 1993: 196).
 Hirst proposed a limited number of forms of knowledge or disci-
plines. He explained the meaning of a form of knowledge, or discipline,
as "a distinct way in which our experience becomes structured round
the use of accepted public symbols" (1974:44). Hirst's forms of knowl-
edge have, in his later work, been articulated into mathematics, physi-
cal sciences, human sciences, history, religion, literature and the fine
arts, and philosophy.
He proposed that these forms of knowledge are distinct and explains
their distinctness in four ways. First, each form has a network of
interrelated concepts. The central concepts of the physical sciences
include, for example, gravity, heat and light, and acceleration. These
concepts are particular to that form of knowledge. Second, these
concepts form a distinctive network which give the form its distinctive
logical structure. Third, each form has expressions or statements
which are in some way testable against experience using criteria which
are particular to that form. A fourth consequence of the classification
of the disciplines or forms of knowledge proposed by Hirst is that they
are irreducible. Irreducibility means that it is not possible to reduce
these forms of knowledge any further, in other words these are the
basic building blocks. Thus, Hirst is saying that these forms of knowl-
edge or disciplines represent the main methodological ways of ana-
lyzing and conceptualizing the external world. Irreducibility is not to
be confused with indivisibility though. For each of these forms of
knowledge may be subdivided into subdisciplines, such as physics or
chemistry. The point about these disciplines is that they each display
a distinct set of concepts, theories, and ways of progressing the disci-
pline in terms of research programs and research methodologies.
Based on Hirst's set of necessary characteristics for a discipline,
tourism studies cannot be regarded as one for several reasons. First,
tourism studies can, in fact, parade a number of concepts. These
include, for example, the destination, the tourism multiplier, yield
management, tourism impacts, and tourism motivation. But these
concepts are hardly particular to tourism studies. They are concepts
that have started life elsewhere and been stretched or contextualized
to give them a tourism dimension. The tourism multiplier, for
instance, borrows the concept of the multiplier developed by econ-
omists and uses it to illustrate the extent to which tourism spending
stays in a particular region.
Second, tourism concepts do not form a distinctive network. They
tend to be separate and atomized and indeed need to be understood
generally within the logical structure of their provider discipline. They
do not link together in any logical way to provide a tourism studies
way of analyzing the world. Their only link is the object of their study
which is tourism. They do not form a cohesive theoretical framework.
Because of this there is not a distinctive logical structure to tourism
studies. Tourism studies, of itself, does not provide a distinctive,
structured way of analyzing the world as does say physics. Third,
tourism studies does not have expressions or statements which are
testable against experience using criteria which are particular to
tourism studies. Hirst gives examples of the sciences' use of empirical
experimentation, and of mathematics' recourse to deductive reason-
ing from sets of axioms. Tourism studies does not provide any truth
criteria which are particular to itself but rather utilizes those criteria
which are found in its contributory disciplines.
Does tourism pass the test of irreducibility? The way to resolve this
question is to pose some typical tourism puzzles and ascertain whether
such puzzles are soluble within a structure called tourism studies,
or whether their resolution requires referral to other disciplines.
Irreducibility would mean that tourism studies itself can provide the
tool kit for analyzing the puzzle. By examining "tourism satisfaction"
as a typical tourism puzzle, one finds that this concept is indeed
reducible, but only through several other disciplines. The term sat-
isfaction may be approached as a philosophical question when the
aspect of "satisfaction with what" is probed. Satisfaction may contain
psychological elements when one asks how satisfaction is perceived by
the subject. Assuming that some of the issues of definition can be
resolved, then one might move onto quantification of "tourism sat-
isfaction" which is essentially a statistical matter.
In fact the substantive concept to be investigated in relation to
"tourism satisfaction" is the concept of "satisfaction" which requires
the most work. The tourism part of the concept is really an add-on
which does not require any special tourism methodology. Once a
methodology for defining and measuring "satisfaction" is devised,
then it can be applied with relative ease to a tourism context. As
such, this and other tourism concepts are built using contributory
disciplines. Therefore, based on Hirst's criteria, tourism is neither a
discipline nor a subdiscipline. Its main shortcomings in this respect
are first a lack of internal theoretical or conceptual unity, and second
a ready reliance on contributory disciplines.
Toulmin's ( 1972) epistemological tests for a discipline are similar
to those of Hirst and comprise uniqueness in terms of a body of
concepts, methods, and fundamental aims. Donald ( 1986) uses a simi-
lar categorization of knowledge based on the nature of concepts, the
logical structure of disciplines, the truth criteria used, and methods
employed. The criteria that King and Brownell (1966) use to define a
discipline include some similar features to those used by Hirst such
as the existence of a mode of inquiry, a conceptual structure, and a
domain. Tourism studies fails the test for acceptance as a discipline
on the above criteria in the same way as it failed in relation to the
Hirst criteria. However, King and Brownell (1966) also include other
criteria such as the existence of a community, a network of com-
munications, a tradition, and a particular set of values and beliefs.
To what extent are these additional criteria met by tourism studies?
First to the community aspects of tourism studies, Cooper, Shepherd
and Westlake assert that "tourism has its own, albeit small academic
community" (1994:54). But how is a community to be judged? A
community must mean a grouping around something, and thus one
might conceive of a community grouped around a faculty or a depart-
ment. But there are very few faculties or departments of tourism.
Moreover, academics are more likely to identify themselves within a
community of others from a similar disciplinary or functional back-
ground, than place themselves within a tourism community. They will
certainly have a more common language with those of a similar
disciplinary background, since there is little intersubjectivity for tour-
ism. Thus, the tourism academic community turns out to be atomized
and exert weaker influences than other social groupings. This analysis
is supported by Henkel's findings for business studies that "as yet,
there is no one business studies community in higher education and
the academic identity of the subject is very weak" ( 1988:189).
What of "a network of communications"? Tourism has developed a
network of communications which include professional associations,
conferences, books, and journals. However, there is only a superficial
similarity between some journal titles. It is possible to classify journals
into those which are primarily about the business of tourism (e.g.,
Tourism Management, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing,
International Journal of Hospitality Management) and those which
have a more open agenda (e.g., Annals of Tourism Research, Journal
of Tourism Studies, and Travel and Tourism Analyst). Thus, the case
for tourism studies as a homogeneous project based on its com-
munications networks tends to disintegrate. As to a tradition and
particular set of values and beliefs applicable to tourism studies,
Graburn and Jafari traced scholarship in tourism and reflected that
"most studies have taken place since 1970 and 50 percent of them
since 1980" ( 1991: 1). Thus, tourism studies has not established any-
thing that could be called a tradition that might impose its own unity.
Given the breadth of tourism, it would be surprising if there were
to be a shared set of values among its scholarly community. Cotgrove
( 1983) explored the notion of competing social paradigms in business
studies. He contrasted sets of values and beliefs which reflected what
he termed the dominant social paradigm with those that reflected an
alternative environmental paradigm. Cotgrove's competing para-
digms apply readily to tourism studies. Within the community of
tourism scholars one can contrast those whose core values are
"material" and favor "economic growth" against those with "non-
material (self-actualization)" values; those who value the natural
environment as a resource against those who value its intrinsic value;
and those who seek "domination over nature" against those who seek
"harmony with nature". The different value systems which inform
different scholars in the tourism studies community mean that dif-
ferent puzzles and different solutions will be followed. For example,
national park management will have different aims and objectives
according to whether the environment is seen in resource terms as
opposed to intrinsic value terms.
Leiper registered an enthusiasm for developing tourism as a disci-
pline:
to overcome the defects stemming from a fundamentally fragmented cur-
riculum, a new discipline needs to be created to form the core strand in
comprehensive programs especially at the professional level ( 198I: 71).

Leiper's paper sets out what he terms a general tourism theory which
he argues gives a system overview. His general tourism theory is based
on the articulation of the system as composed of tourists, generating
regions, transit routes, destination regions, and the industry. But
while this is a useful mapping of the dimensions of tourism, it hardly
constitutes a unifying theory of tourism. Leiper further suggests that
the term tourology be used to describe the discipline that he sees as
developing on the basis of his general tourism theory. It is a "suitable
name for the scientific study of tourism". Some 15years after the
publication of Leiper's paper, there is no evidence of such a term
being used.
One may conclude from the above analysis that tourism is not a
discipline. However, recent theorists who have subjected the concept
of disciplines to critical scrutiny have found them to be lacking the
tight, unifying structure that was once imagined:
When one begins to look closely in to [the epistemological structures of the
disciplines) it becomes apparent that most of them embrace a wide range
of subspecialisms, some with one set of features and others with others.
There is no single method of inquiry, no standard verification procedure, no
definitive set of concepts which uniquely characterizes a particular discipline
(Becher 1989:43).

Thus, the attempt by some to legitimate tourism studies by packaging

it up as a discipline not only fails on logical grounds (i.e., tourism
studies does not pass the test), but is also an empty and fruitless one
(i.e., disciplines are not the sine qua non of knowledge production).

Tourism as a Science
In the absence of disciplinary status, tourism may turn to science
for an appropriate framework. For example, Gunn notes that an
important way of "gaining [tourism] knowledge is through science".
Gunn sees in science a quality of paramount importance, that is
its method of "questioning and systematic check" ( 1987:4). Science
certainly provides one appropriate epistemology for tourism studies.
While limiting tourism studies to the use of scientific method solves
some problems (provides a valid test for knowledge), this poses others.
Scientific method does provide systematic check, but can only provide
systematic check of parts of the tourism phenomenon which allow
systematic checking. Thus, in proposing scientific method as the
method of tourism analysis, one would necessarily exclude large parts
of the phenomenal world of tourism which are not scientifically quan-
tifiable and are not indeed scientific puzzles.
Hirst's (1965) initial classification of forms of knowledge show what
aspects of tourism knowledge would be foregone. Thus, while the
scientific embraces empirical forms of knowledge, what of math-
ematical, philosophical, moral, aesthetic, historical, and sociological
forms? Tourism studies requires greater epistemological breadth than
that suggested by Gunn. There are many significant moral and aes-
thetic questions facing tourism.
Leiper's (1981) proposed science of tourology makes a similar pre-
supposition to Gunn that tourism studies is a scientific study. This is
redolent of the development of economics as a discipline. Economics
sought respectability in the rigor of the scientific method. But the
effects of developing orthodox economics on scientific and math-
ematics methodologies have been that first economic theory has
increasingly become separate from the phenomenal world that it seeks
to describe, and second that phenomenal world is seen in a particular
way. The methodology of orthodox economics as it has developed has
become something of a strait-jacket. Schon ( 1983) has also cautioned
against what he terms the "technical rationality" model which domi-
nates professional practice. He sees this as promoting knowledge
which is of a propositional nature and based on scientific method
at the expense of process knowledge. Schon ( 1987) sees this latter
knowledge as an essential part of the skills base needed, for example,
by those employed in tourism management.

Tourism as a Field
Hirst (1965, 1993) has also turned his attention to the notion of
fields of knowledge. These are not, in his view, disciplines or sub-
divisions of disciplines. This is because a field does not have the
coherence of a discipline. In a sense fields and disciplines relate to the
phenomenological world in different ways. A discipline provides a
particular tool kit in terms of concepts, acquired knowledge, and
methodology, and this tool kit is used to illuminate a particular part
of the external world. A pair of disciplinary spectacles is provided by
a discipline, and these spectacles reveal particular truths about the
world. Thus, a physicist would see the external world in a particular
way. For example, a physicist's interest in the world of tourism might
include aspects such as the reasons that aircraft fly, using concepts
such as aerodynamics and lift.
Fields work from the opposite direction. Fields are formed by con-
centrating on particular phenomena or practices such as tourism or
housing or engineering. They then call on a number of disciplines to
investigate and explain their area of interest. Knowledge flows in
different directions between fields and disciplines. Henkel contrasted
disciplines which "are held together by distinctive constellations of
theories, concepts, and methods" with fields which "draw upon all
sorts of knowledge that may illuminate them" ( 1988:185). Hirst
described fields as being "formed by building together round specific
objects, or phenomena, or practical pursuits, knowledge that is charac-
teristically rooted elsewhere in more than one discipline". Hirst con-
ceded that disciplines might borrow from each other, but that fields
were separable from disciplines because "they are not concerned to
validate any one logically distinct form of expression" or in "develop-
ing a particular structure of experience" ( 1965:130).
Several writers have considered tourism as a field as depicted by
the above definitions. Gunn lists the main disciplines that he sees
as contributing to tourism as marketing, geography, anthropology,
behavior, business, human ecology, history, political science, planning
and design, and futurism. Futurism is defined as "applied history"
and results when "philosophers, scientists, technicians and planners
have joined in making insightful studies of trends" ( 1987:8).According
to Gunn:
 Tourism knowledge today is building through a variety of means ...First
tourism practitioners know certain things because of tenacity ...second is the
method of authority ...A third way of gaining tourism knowledge is by means
of intuition ...The fourth way of gaining knowledge is through science
(1987:4).
Other than science, Gunn's analysis, however, includes ways of know-
ing which are clearly no such thing. Tenacity is explained as firmly
held views, authority as the word of someone important, and intuition
speaks for itself-none of these can be serious contenders in justifying
the existence of knowledge.
Jafari and Brent Ritchie (1981) presented a model of tourism stud-
ies as a field (Figure I). This model helps to illustrate the multi-
disciplinary nature of tourism studies. But in the light of Hirst's
work on the nature of disciplines, and on other grounds, several
modifications are proposed. The inner circle of boxes are referred to

Figure 1. Study of Tourism Choice of Discipline and Approach. Source: Jafar

Jafari, University of Wisconsin-Stout
as tourism courses and the outer ring of shaded boxes are denoted as
disciplines or departments. The mixing of disciplines and departments
can cause confusion and the model could gain in conceptual clarity by
putting together the various tourism puzzles (i.e., the objects of study)
on the inner ring and the methods of analysis (i.e., the disciplinary
approaches) on the outer ring. Thus, while sociology, economics, and
psychology represent disciplines, parks and recreation, education,
hotel, and agriculture clearly do not. Parks and recreation, transport,
and education, for instance represent something to be studied-not
a way of studying. They thus belong in the inner ring.
Additionally, the positioning of marketing and business poses prob-
lems. Marketing represents a business function which utilizes a set of
principles. It is not a discipline in its own right, but rather uses
disciplines such as economics, sociology, and psychology, as well as
codifying practice from the world of business. In fact marketing is
often considered as part of the field of inquiry of business studies and
law could be added to this grouping too. It is useful here to note
Henkel's analysis that the "techniques required in business studies
are derivative partly from the disciplines that contribute to them and
partly from the world of business practice" ( 1988:188). In other words,
part of its knowledge is being validated outside of the academy.
Business studies and marketing thus pose problems for Jafari and
Ritchie's model and a quite significant reformulation of it is required
before their accommodation can take place. This is because there are
now two fields of inquiry emerging from the model-tourism and
business studies. Although it has seemed convenient and makes for a
neat solution to wrap up the field of tourism a single entity called
tourism studies, this approach perhaps causes undue confusion.
Rather there seem to be (at least) two fields of study discernible under
the umbrella of tourism studies. One field is readily identifiable as
tourism business studies. The identity of this is borrowed from the
increasingly mature field of business studies which has now tentatively
carved out a particular territory as its own. Tourism business studies
shares a similar territory to business studies but in a tourism context.
It includes the marketing of tourism, tourism corporate strategy,
tourism law, and the management of tourism.
The other field of tourism studies does not have such an obvious
title, because it is little more than just the rest of tourism studies
(or non-business tourism studies), is less obviously purposeful than
tourism business studies, more atomized, and lacking in any unifying
framework other than the link with tourism. It includes areas such as
environmental impacts, tourism perceptions, carrying capacity, and
social impacts. This may be called tourism field two (TF2), using TF 1
to denote tourism business studies. Therefore, the field of tourism
(TF)=TFl +TF2. However, it should be noted that there is some
overlap between the two. Concepts such as environmental impacts of
tourism development reside essentially in TF2, but since they
indirectly affect the business of tourism they also overlap into TFl.
Squires has recorded similar problems with other new fields when
they have been conceptualized as a unitary entity. With regards to
communications studies he notes "doubts ...(about) whether it does
not constitute two distinct fields of machine and human communi-
cation, for which information theory cannot provide a unifying para-
digm". Similarly, he noted that environmental studies "range from
the physical to the social with ...almost nothing in common between
these two extremes" (1990:45).
One may further adjust Jafari and Ritchie's model by incorporat-
ing in it examples from Hirst's model. Its modified outer circle
would include Hirst's irreducible disciplines such as philosophy (Fig-
ure 2). This is a useful point of reference since Hirst's forms of
knowledge can help in understanding the variety and type of question
being raised by a tourism puzzle and in reaching for an appropriate
methodology for analysis of the puzzle. The outer circle would also
include disciplinary subdivisions, representing the disciplinary tools
of analysis (space in Figure 2 permits only partial representation of
the disciplines and discipline "n" is used to denote those that have
been left out). The middle circle (TFl +TF2=TF) would then rep-
resent the two tourism fields. Figure 2 may be used to demonstrate
developments and knowledge creation in the fields of tourism.
Between the outer and the middle circle TF, the one which represents
the field of tourism, is an area within which tourism theories and
concepts are distilled. This may be called band k.

Figure 2. The Creation of Tourism Knowledge. Outer Circle=Disciplines and

Subdisciplines; Middle Circle=Fields of Tourism; Inner Circle=World of
Tourism; TFI =Business Interdisciplinarity; TF2=Non-Business-Related
Tourism
 Band k represents an interesting area where tourism knowledge is
created. Several activities take place in band k. First, at a simple level,
it represents the interface between the disciplines and the fields of
tourism. Thus, where economics enters a field of tourism, the theory
of the tourism multiplier is born. In essence this is just the application
of an existing theory to a new field. Tourism knowledge that results
from this and similar activity may be conceived of as being mul-
tidisciplinary. The term multidisciplinary describes a number of dis-
crete disciplinary approaches to the field. Epistemologically speaking,
each discipline provides the methodology to justify knowledge claims.
However, band k does not just represent the interface between a
single discipline and the field of tourism and, therefore, it does not
solely represent multidisciplinary activity. It is also possible for band
k to represent a place where disciplines interact with one another and
the field of tourism. This represents a powerful area for the generation
of new ways of analyzing the external world of tourism. For example,
the concept of carrying capacity emerges from a combination of disci-
plines including sociology, economics, and biology. (Biology provided
a powerful analogy in its study of how organisms behave and interact
on the limited resources of an agar dish.) This combining of disci-
plinary tools to create new insights into the external world of tourism
represents an interdisciplinary approach. Interdisciplinarity gen-
erates an epistemology "characterized by the explicit formulation of
a uniform, discipline-transcending terminology or a common meth-
odology" (Gibbons, Limogues, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott and
Trow 1994:29). One can conceive of not only multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary activity but also of a particular cluster of inter-
disciplinary activity in the field of tourism. That cluster constitutes the
perspective of business analysis. This cluster of activities is distilled
partially from the disciplines and partially from the world of business
practice and includes aspects such as tourism marketing, tourism
finance, and tourism corporate planning. This is identified as a coor-
dinated and distinct set of activities which turns out to be TFl, the
field of business tourism or business interdisciplinarity. As such, one
has identified multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary dimensions of
tourism studies each of which projects a particular view of the external
world of tourism and carries a particular set of criteria for knowledge
evaluation.
Gibbons et al refer to this mode of knowledge production as mode 1
which is "generated within a disciplinary, primarily cognitive context"
( 1994:1). It is also knowledge which has been primarily generated and
nurtured within institutions of higher education. Therefore, band k
can be conceived of as being within the gamut of higher education
and the site of mode 1 knowledge production for tourism. On the
other hand, business interdisciplinarity resides only partially in band
k since it has recourse to the disciplines but also reaches deep into
the world of practice.
Gibbons et al have identified a new form of knowledge production
which they label mode 2:

The new mode operates within a context of application in that problems

 are not set within a disciplinary framework ...It is not being institutionalized
primarily within university structures ...[and] makes use of a wider range of
criteria in judging quality control (1994:vii).

Mode 2 knowledge production may be located on the model in Figure

2. It occurs in the center circle, that is within the external world of
tourism. The majority of mode 2 tourism knowledge production takes
place in the upper part of the center circle and relates to allocated to
the TFI area of the world of tourism. This is because the main sites
of mode 2 knowledge production include industry, government, think
tanks, interest groups, research institutes, and consultancies. This
way, the majority of mode 2 knowledge production occurs within the
business of tourism. Mode 2 knowledge production in tourism includes
developments and applications of information technology for tourism
such as smart hotel rooms, yield management systems, and com-
puterized reservations developments--developed in the industry for
the industry.
Furthermore, Gibbons et al explain mode 2 knowledge in terms of
transdisci plinari ty:
knowledge which emerges from a particular context of application with its own
distinct theoretical structures, research methods, and modes of practice but
which may not be locatable on the prevailing disciplinary map (I 994: !68).

However, it is proposed to use the term extradisciplinarity to describe

mode 2 knowledge production. This is because the term trans-
disciplinarity (across the disciplines) is easily confused with inter-
disciplinarity. But mode 2 knowledge is being produced outside the
disciplinary framework, hence the term extradisciplinarity is seen as
being more appropriate. The important points to note about mode 2
knowledge production are first that it occurs outside of higher
education, the traditional center for knowledge production, and
second, that it is developing its own epistemology. Disciplinary-based
methodology and peer review are the hallmarks of quality control for
mode 1 knowledge. Mode 2 knowledge, however, judges success by its
ability to solve a particular problem, its cost effectiveness, and its
ability to establish competitive advantage (i.e., its effectiveness in the
real world). Its results are often highly contextualized for a specific
project.
An analysis of the epistemology of tourism would be incomplete if
it failed to consider postmodernist analysis. Indeed Lyotard's hypoth-
esis in The Postmodern Condition is
that the status of knowledge is altered as societies enter what is known as
the post-industrial age and culture enters what is known as the postmodern
age (1984:3).

Lyotard develops the concept of performativity which is seen as a key

force driving the progress of scientific and technological knowledge.
The argument is that as science becomes more complex, it requires
ever more technologically complex proofs. Technology is dominated
by performativity (the maximum output for the minimum input) and
technology and performativity come to dominate scientific progress.
The importance of this is that "an equation between wealth, efficiency,
and truth is thus established" (Lyotard 1984:45). In other words,
science demands complex proofs which cost money, and knowledge
which is useful to the economy will tend to be favored:
The production of proof... thus falls under control of another language game,
in which the goal is no longer truth, but performativity-that is the best
possible input/output equation (Lyotard 1984:46).

The consequence of Lyotard's analysis may be recorded in Figure 2.

It is that the TF 1 part of the field of tourism exerts a strong pull on
knowledge production and that much tourism knowledge is generated
for profitability. Therefore, TF 1 is expanding. Performativity influ-
ences what knowledge is to be produced (it must be economically
useful) by providing the technological (expensive) means of validation
of knowledge:
the fact remains that since performativity increases the ability to produce
proof, it also increases the ability to be right: the technical criterion, intro-
duced on a massive scale into scientific knowledge, cannot fail to influence
the truth criterion. (Lyotard 1984:46).

The postmodern view is that epistemology is led by functionalism and

the aim of knowledge production becomes not an impartial uncovering
of truth but a search for truths which are useful in terms of mar-
ketability and efficiency. Lechte summarizes the postmodern era as
"one in which power and knowledge come into contact with each other
as never before" ( 1994:247).

CONCLUSION
Far from making a smooth transition towards disciplinary status by
way of an overarching paradigm and a unifying theory, tourism studies
faces a much more messy prospect. Tourism studies is not a discipline
and is not one but two distinct fields. But this distinction between
fields and disciplines merely suggests that one is witnessing an object
of study (field) rather than a way of studying (discipline). Therefore,
one needs to understand how the field of tourism is studied. Figure 2
attests to the complex epistemologies associated with tourism studies
which result in four main methods of inquiry: multidisciplinarity,
interdisciplinarity, business interdisciplinarity, and mode 2 (extra-
disciplinarity). These methods are outlined in Table 1, which dis-
tinguishes between those approaches which reside essentially in the
world of thought (band k) and those which reside in the world of
practice (mode 2).
There are a number of approaches to tourism studies which are not
mutually exclusive. Hence, rather than to talk of the discipline of
tourism studies, it would be more apt to talk of its indiscipline. There
are eight important implications for tourism studies that result from
the above analysis.
First, while there are four main approaches, the tourism studies
that is developing in higher education tends to be crystallizing around
the business interdisciplinary approach. This is because the field of
tourism business studies has some coherence and structure and a
 Table 1.Approaches to Tourism Studies

Approach Epistemology Example

Multidisciplinarity Provided by individual Tourism

discipline multiplier

General Agreed between agents Destination

World of Interdisciplinarity of the disciplines being carrying capacity
Thought used

Business Sometimes from the Marketing of

Interdisciplinarity disciplines tourism

Sometimes from the

world of practice
World of
Practice
Extradisciplinarity Ability to solve Yield
problem/performativity management

framework of theories and concepts-albeit borrowed from the field

of business studies. It offers an area where clusters of theory and
practice can be brought together in a coherent whole. The increasing
critical mass of this area exerts a sort of gravitational pull on business-
related knowledge that emerges from the disciplines and from the
world of practice. However, the other tourism field (TF2) does not
appear to have a unifying element and there is no comprehensive
aggregation of non-business tourism knowledge. Interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary knowledge that is created around TF2 has no frame-
work upon which to crystallize. The major gravitational pull upon
these bits of atomized knowledge emanates from the disciplines them-
selves. Leiper's ( 1981) tourology has failed to materialize. It still
makes sense here to talk of the economics of tourism, the sociology of
tourism, and the like, as there is no "TF2 of tourism".
Second, on account of the relative strength of the business of tour-
ism, because of the increasing importance of mode 2 knowledge and
because of the power of the performativity principle, the part of Figure
2 represented by TFl (the business world of tourism) is pushing out
at the expense of other parts of the diagram. Third, the external
world of tourism which is actually distilled into tourism studies
depends crucially on what one is seeking for and how one has gone
about this search. Tourism studies turns out to be not an objective,
value free search for tourism knowledge, since the epistemological
characteristics of the approaches of different fields perform a selector
role.
Those operating within field TF1 will make different inroads into
the external world to tourism from those who are operating within
field TF2. Each will fall back on different epistemologies. For example,
within the disciplinary approach, each discipline provides a particular
pair of disciplinary spectacles. These spectacles cause certain parts of
the terrain to be thrown into sharp relief as one casts a disciplinary
gaze across the territory of tourism. This way, the economist may see
tourism in terms of its resources, and may see resource utilization in
terms of the production unit-the firm. The economist may explore
the territory of efficiency of resource use, profitability, and resource
allocation within tourism. On the other hand the anthropologist may
wish to explore those issues of tourism that result from tourism
generated contacts between the host and guest cultures.
Fourth, from an empirical perspective what constitutes the study
of tourism is a relatively simple business of recording how the field
has developed. If tourism studies is overwhelmingly populated by
researchers of the business of tourism, tourism studies becomes the
business of tourism. But from a theoretical perspective, tourism stud-
ies can be whatever aspect of tourism might be carved out for study
by a particular field of inquiry and the answer to the question as to
what constitutes tourism knowledge becomes a very broad one.
Fifth, following Cot grove ( 1983) one is warned that the values held
by those operating from different approaches to tourism may be quite
different. Indeed the different approaches may add up to different
ideologies making communication between the two fields quite diffi-
cult. This is perhaps best illustrated by the difficulties in com-
munications existing between those operating in the business of
tourism and those operating from an environmental tourism
approach. There can be a lack of intersubjectivity (i.e., the different
camps speak a different technical language and thus find it difficult to
communicate), and problems may be framed differently (with disputes
about what factors should rightfully enter the frame). Moreover, each
camp may legitimate knowledge and truth in different ways. This may
result in a condition termed by Lyotard as a differend: "a case of
conflict between at least two parties that cannot be equitably resolved
for lack of a rule of judgment applicable to both arguments" ( 1988:xi).
Sixth, the academic world has tended to overlook mode 2 production
of knowledge. This is because this mode is not communicated in
academic journals and does not seek validation from higher education.
There is a danger here of a potential schism between mode 1 and
mode 2 production. Cooper, Shepherd and Westlake seem to dismiss
mode 2 knowledge observing that:
the big problem with applied research is that it usually fails to add anything
substantial or significant to the body of knowledge ...This is because the
problem is too company- or sector-specific and relatively limited in its scope,
i.e., it is usually concrete and operationally-oriented rather than abstract or
conceptual in its nature ...and therefore, frequently does not progress the
body of knowledge ( 1994: 126).

Perhaps more collaborative projects between industry and higher

education would help resolve this industry/academic divide.
However, seventh, Lyotard's analysis of performativity as the new
justification for research suggests that the production of tourism
knowledge may be subject to undue influence from economic quarters:
Although inexpensive, pure research in search of truth is still possible,
expensive research is becoming the norm and this means getting funding
assistance (Lechte 1994:247)
Funding requires justification and performativity creeps in. Thus, the
pursuit of impartial tourism knowledge needs to be protected so that
non-economic aspects of tourism can be studied.
Finally, the search for tourism as a discipline should be abandoned.
It is a sign of nostalgia (hankering after an overly idealized concept)
and insecurity (lack of academic self-confidence) and would involve
casting adrift important parts of tourism studies in the quest for
conceptual coherence and logical consistency. Tourism studies seems
likely to remain in a pre-paradigmatic phase (Kuhn 1962) but this
should not be seen as a problem. Rather tourism studies should
recognize and celebrate its diversity.

Acknowledgments- The author would like to thank Ronald Barnett, Dean of Pro-
fessional Development, Institute of Education, University of London, for comments
on this paper.

REFERENCES
Becher, T.
1989 Academic Tribes and Territories. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cooper, C.,J. Fletcher, D. Gilbert and S. Wanhill
1993 Tourism: Principles and Practices. London: Pitman.
Cooper, C., R. Shepherd and]. Westlake
1994 Tourism and Hospitality Education. Guildlford: University of Surrey.
Cotgrove, S.
1983 Risk, Value Conflict and Political Legitimacy. In The Hidden Curriculum
in Business Studies, D. Groves, ed., pp. 4 7-54. Chichester: Higher Education
Foundation.
Donald,].
1986 Knowledge and the University Curriculum. Higher Education 15:267-282.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H.Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott and M. Trow
1994 The New Production of Knowledge. London: Sage.
Goeldner, C. R.
1988 The Evaluation of Tourism as an Industry and a Discipline. International
Conference for Tourism Educators mimeo. Guildford: University of Surrey.
Gunn, C.
1987 A Perspective in the Purpose and Nature of Tourism Research Methods. In
Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Research. R. Ritchie and C. Goeldner, eds.,
pp. 3-12. Chichester: Wiley.
Henkel, M.
1988 Responsiveness of the Subjects in Our Study: A Theoretical Perspective. In
Higher Education and Preparation for Work, C. Brennan et al, eds., pp. 134-
195. Chichester: Wiley.
Hirst, P.
1965 Liberal Education and the nature of Knowledge. In Philosophical Analysis
and Education, R. D. Archambault, ed., pp. 113-140. Henley: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
1974 Knowledge and the Curriculum. London: Routledge.
1993 Education, Knowledge and Practices. In Beyond Liberal Education, R. Barrow
and P. White, eds., pp. 184-199. London: Routledge.
Jafari,J.
1991 Tourism Social Science. Annals of Tourism Research 18(1): 1-9.
Jafari, J., and J . R. Brent Ritchie
1981 Towards a Framework for Tourism Education. Annals of Tourism Research
H:l3-33.
King, A. R., and J. Brownell
1966 The Curriculum and the Disciplines of Knowledge. New York: Wiley.
Kuhn, T. S.
1962 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Lechte,J.
1994 Fifty Key Contemporary Thinkers. London: Routledge.
Leiper, N.
1981 Towards a Cohesive Curriculum in Tourism: The Case for a Distinct Disci-
pline. Annals of Tourism Research 8:69-83.
Lyotard,J.
1984 The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Manchester: Man-
chester University Press.
1988 The Differend: Phases in Dispute (trans. G. Van den Abbeele). Minneapolis
MN: University of Minneapolis Press.
Mcintosh, R. W., and C. R. Goeldner
1995 Tourism: Principles, Practices and Philosophies. New York: Wiley.
Mathieson, A., and G. Wall
1982 Tourism: Economic, Physical and Social Impacts. London: Longman.
Popper, K.
1975 Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Milton Keynes: Open Uni-
versity Press.
Przeclawski, K.
1993 Tourism as the Subject of lnterdisciplinary Research. In Tourism Research:
Critiques and Challenges, D. Pearce and R. Butler, eds., pp. 9-19. London:
Routledge.
Ryan, C.
1991 Recreational Tourism: A Social Science Perspective. London: Routledge.
Schon, D. A.
1983 The Reflective Practitioner. London: Maurice Temple Smith.
1987 Educating the Reflective Practitioner. London: Jossey-Bass.
Soltis, J. F.
1968 An Introduction to the Analysis of Educational Concepts. Reading MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Squires, G.
1990 The Undergraduate Curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Toulmin, S.
1972 Human Understanding (Vol. 1), Oxford: Clarenden Press.